Aishwarya Devi v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10767 of 2013 ====================================================== Aishwarya Devi, wife of Sri Indresh Kumar Kushwaha, Resident of Village Gopalpur under Revenue Village Bakulahar, P.S.-Gopalpur, District West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6, Currindhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001 through its Chairman 2.

The Chairman, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6, Currindhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 3.

The Area Marketing Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 3rd Floor, Ashiana Chamber, Exhibition Road, Patna 800001 4.

The District Magistrate, West Champaran 5.

Neetika Mishra, wife of Sri Jitendra Mishra, resident of House No. 228, Ujjain Tola (Bhagwati Nagar), Ward No. 16, Bettiah Town, P.S.-Bettiah Mufasil, District West Champaran ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh, Advocate For the S t a t e :

Mr. Naman Nayak, A.C. to AAG-10 For the BPCL :

Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.5 :

Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Santosh Bharte, Advocate Mrs. Anu Priyadarshini, Advocate Mr. Navin Anand, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 06-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the BPCL and learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for private respondent, being respondent No.5. The matter has been heard on different occasions and on the last occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to seek instructions and file reply to the counter affidavit.

It appears from the counter affidavit that the Unit in

Patna High Court CWJC No.10767 of 2013(4) dt.06-10-2017 2/2 question has already been commissioned and is functioning thereafter.

In view of the fact that there is no effective reply from the petitioner to the aforesaid contention and the fact stands corroborated by the BPCL also, the present application has been rendered infructuous. It is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.

(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U